Important MCQ's Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Q 1. A litigant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay on the grounds of a subsequent change in law. Decide the maintainability of such an application.a. Application would not be maintainable as subsequent overruling of a judgment cannot be "sufficient cause" for seeking condonation of delay.b. Application would be maintainable as subsequent overruling of a judgment can be "sufficient cause" for seeking condonation of delay.c. If a subsequent change of law is allowed as a valid ground for condonation of delay, then there would be no end to litigation.d. Both (a) and (c)Answer: Option (d)Explanation: In a batch of land acquisition cases, the Supreme Court recently observed that subsequent change in law cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. The court summed up its observation on the point thus, "subsequent change of law will not be attracted unless a case is pending before the competent court awaiting its final adjudication. To say it differently, if a case has already been decided, it cannot be re-opened and re-decided solely on the basis of a new interpretation given to that law."Subsequent Change In Law Can't Be A Ground For Condonation Of Delay: Supreme CourtQ 2. An application was filed under Section 29A (4) of the Arbitration Act seeking an extension of the time limit for passing an arbitral award before the High Court not having an original civil jurisdiction. However, the High Court rejected the said application. Decide.a. The High Court having an original civil jurisdiction can only entertain the application seeking an extension of a time limit.b. There's no bar for the High Court not having an original civil jurisdiction to entertain the application seeking an extension of a time limit.c. When the High Court doesn't have an original civil jurisdiction then the appropriate court would be the principal civil court in the district.d. Both (a) and (c)Answer: Option (d)Explanation: The Supreme Court held that a High Court that does not have original civil jurisdiction does not have the power to extend the time limit for passing of the arbitral award as per Section 29A of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 (“Act”). The court clarified that as per the mandate of Section 29A (4) of the Act, the power to extend the time limit for passing of the arbitral award vests within the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, but there is no impediment for the High Court who is exercising the ordinary original civil jurisdiction to extend the time limit.High Court Not Having Original Civil Jurisdiction Cannot Extend Time To Pass Arbitral Award As Per S.29A(4) Arbitration Act: Supreme CourtQ 3. A trial court refused to take cognizance of an offence against the police official for committing an offence of dereliction of duty (for not registering an FIR) under the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The trial court was of the view that cognizance of the offence couldn't be taken unless the administrative enquiry report was submitted to the court. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant preferred to challenge the trial court's decision before the High Court. The High Court reversed the trial court decision and directed prosecution against the police official. Decide.a. Refusal of a police official to register an FIR under the SC/ST Act is a clear dereliction of duty and no administrative enquiry report is needed to prosecute the police official.b. Requirement of calling an administrative enquiry report against the police official is an inbuilt safeguard to the public servant from initiation of prosecution by every dissatisfied complainant.c. The cognizance of an offence of dereliction of duty shall be taken based on the recommendation provided by an administrative enquiry.d. Both (b) and (c)Answer: Option (d)Explanation: The Supreme Court held that the absence of a recommendation by an administrative enquiry to initiate a case against the public servant would bar taking cognizance of an offence of dereliction of duty against the public servant under the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“Act”). The court stated that the recommendation of the administrative enquiry is a sine qua non, to set in motion the penal proceedings including taking cognizance for an offence of commission and omission i.e., wilful neglect/dereliction of duty by a public servant under section 4(2) of the Act of 1989.SC/ST Act | Cognizance Against Public Servant For Offence Of Neglect Of Duty Cannot Be Taken Without Administrative Enquiry Report: Supreme CourtQ 4. The trial court altered the charge framed against the accused from Section 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC to Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC. However, the accused was not granted an opportunity to recall/examine the witness in reference to the altered charges. Decide.a. An opportunity must be granted to the accused in reference to the altered charges to...

Important MCQ's Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Important MCQ's Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers